Neal Hood: Count me on the side of the 24-70 lens. For portraiture, just crop in raw to equate it to a 100 lens. It will work superbly and, I bet the outcome will be better than if taken with at 100 on a 28-100 lens. So there is a work around for the shorter mm lens on the series III, however there isn't much of a workaround if you really need 24 for a shot. 24mm adds more opportunity and capability than one might at first think.
Skytripper, Neal Hood is actually correct. You're mistaking cropping into the image for physically reframing the shot with a different focal length. Consider the following: I have my camera on a tripod and I have a 24mm lens. I take a photo. There's a section of the shot I want to see at 100mm. If I swap out the lens on the camera without moving it, I will effectively get a zoomed in 100mm area from what I was seeing before at 24mm. I could ALSO take the 24mm photo and crop inward to the same amount as the 100mm field of view. The camera hasn't moved, there will be no difference in compression of depth. The only difference is that the 24mm crop will be much lower resolution (throwing away unwanted pixels) than a shot taken with a dedicated 100mm lens (using the entire 20MP sensor.) What Neal is saying is that cropping in from 70mm to make it look 100mm won't be too big of a deal, and the 20MP picture size will still allow large enough image exports.
justmeMN: The "Conclusion - Cons" list contains significant flaws should have prevented this camera from getting a Gold Award.
DPR should stick to writing excellent reviews, and forget about giving an Award at the end. Awards have become meaningless.
Wait, since when were these scores and awards relative to each other? Reviews don't work that way. True, scores are meaningless and only lead to frivolous debates, but as far as my understanding goes: review scores are pit against only the product in question being reviewed. They're a grade as to whether or not the product ultimately achieved what was expected of it (various factors considered) --- not whether or not it's the best in its class. If that's the case, they'd have to CONSTANTLY scale down other reviews on the site to make room for newer, obviously better cameras that hadn't been released yet. It's a way to tell "This camera has way more good going for it than bad. It's overall solid." Not "This camera has an 80% score and is interchangeable with any other 80% score camera because that's the class it wound up in."
Hugo808: As someone who is looking for a new small walkabout camera, I have to wonder what the advantage of this would be over the Canon 100D?
With that I get a proper viewfinder, a bigger sensor and the lenses are cheaper. There must be something that drags people to m4/3's but I can't fathom it.
Hugo808, if you think looking into an EVF is like staring into a TV from the 70's an inch from your eye, you clearly haven't used Sony's EVF's found on the higher-end Alpha and NEX cameras. It's not just their high resolution (2.3M dots like the E-M1) that makes them so good, but the fact they're OLED, not LCD, so blacks are super deep and color very natural. If TV's looked that good in the 70's, man, we'd probably already have technology to beam imagery directly to your brain today.
CeleryBeats: WOW. Noise performance is I N S A N E. I am becoming a really big fan of sony concerning compact camera's. Sugoi desu ne!
I just got the RX100 about a month ago. I'm going to sit this generation out and wait for the RX200/mark 3. If i can hold my self that long :P But damn sony keep it up!
I got the RX100 last fall. I've had it for a while and love it dearly. And as much as I'd love to upgrade to the Mk.II, I have to remind myself that my RX100 is by FAR no slouch even compared to these upgrades. I know I should save my money and sit a generation or two out or else I'll forever get stuck being envious of the latest and greatest release, and ritualistically upgrade at the end of every summer.
No! Our RX100's are still awesome and we must resist the temptation! Hahahah.
Gesture: But the more you look at this, it makes the argument (like Sony) for a fixed mirror, i.e. the pellicle mirror solution. Either view should have equal capability and always be on.
If Sony uses a phase-detect sensor in its DSLR bodies, chances are it will just ditch the translucent mirror and call them mirrorless DSLR's. That would make the internal construction of Sony's cameras less complex -- not needing a phase sensor array at all. Just go straight to the sensor, then to the EVF, no matter if you're shooting photos or videos.
Either that, or they're going to develop the SLT tech further with beefier phase detect sensors that perform better than what Canon is using.
Peter 111: Overall score A99: 84%D800E: 84%D800: 82%5D3: 82%
"It stands out as the only full frame camera to offer in-body stabilization, an EVF and articulated rear screen." WYSIWYG EVF, throwing away the Hoodman now. Sold my D800 and got an A99, loving it :)
I have the A77 (same EVF as 99) after years of owning EOS XXD line bodies. I'm not sure what you guys are saying about lag -- I've used the 77 a lot and what you see going on in the EVF is probably no more than a single tenth of a second behind what's going on in front of you. (For the record I don't do sports photography.)
If you're talking about EVF proximity detect lag, I haven't found the split-second change-over any problem. If you close the screen, the EVF is already on by time the viewfinder is fully up to your eye.
The color reproduction isn't wildly different either, I find the EVF to be closer in color to what I get on my computer monitor when I upload the pictures later which is pretty cool -- you get a better idea of what the shot will be like even before you take it. I can't even remember the last time I took a "test shot" with the SLT.
Make no mistake: the Sony XGA OLED viewfinders are nothing like any 800x600 LCD finder seen in other cameras before it.
tpb371: Surprised to hear that another PREVIEW is coming out on X-E1. It's about time for the REVIEW.
I'd rather DPR take its time in truly getting to know a camera and publishing every bit of significant information it can find on its performance and handling. It's better information to a prospective buyer in the end, at the expense of a little time. Unless you'd rather DPR publish reviews that feel more like fleeting impressions and observations like every other review site out there.
Hey Lars, just to verify: the G15 still does NOT have *fulll* manual video recording, right? You can set exposure compensation, but as far as I understand you don't have direct input of shutter speed, aperture, and ISO for video, am I correct in this?
Najinsky: Strange, I find in the image test (raw) section, the tests from the silver rated, smaller, lighter RX100, show the RX100 images to be bigger, cleaner and have more detail.
In the 'compact' group, if a camera is more compact and delivers better images, shouldn't it be getting a better award than a bulkier compact delivering lesser images?
I guess controls and ergonomics have to play a part, but taken to extremes, it suggests the question just how poor can the IQ be and still get a gold award?
Not that the IQ here is poor, nor anything wrong with the camera, but for a pocketable camera with big camera IQ, I just couldn't see myself choosing this over the Sony. So I guess what I'm really saying is I'm not sure who your gold award is speaking too. An older generation perhaps, who can't use a rear mount click wheel to change settings?
@Arin: Man I wish I had money to buy a camera and give it to someone! Hahaha
But really, I was a Canon G9-G12 owner and I can say the handling isn't better on my RX100, but the size to performance ratio is. And that's all that really matters to me at this point in time since I have a larger DSLR (Alpha A77) for super serious stuff. (I do like I can swap memory cards between the A77 and RX100 without any card formatting necessary. They can even read each others files!)
But man, after I saw the review for the Panasonic LX7, I felt like I may have just maybe chosen the RX100 too soon. There's no denying that camera also gives the RX100 and G15 a run for its money.
Good time as a consumer to be in the market for a high-end compact! So many top notch choices.
VivaLasVegas: RX100 repeatedly stamp to the ground by G15. G15 is the Ferrari in its category. No weak link in its packaging........Canon is owning the competition!
No...? They're both top-notch, category-leading cameras. Both have strengths and weaknesses, there's no denying either of them. Get whichever one looks more interesting to you and I assure you, you'll take great pictures with either. That is, if YOU'RE good enough to utilize their capabilities and compensate their shortcomings.
alexzn: Does DPR want to revise its Silver award rating? I think it was a intake. RX100 is a game-changer in the compact camera category, (even given its flaws). Time is right.
@Everyone: To be honest I don't see what the problem is. 78% with a silver award is a a perfectly respectable, solid score for a camera. Especially when you consider just about all of the most high-end cream-of-of-the-crop cameras on this site never score higher than 84%!
Digital Suicide: I think many people know Sony better for TVs, walkmans, or other electronics.But look at the NEX series, RX100, then RX1... At least Sony is reading your moans and is trying to make cameras of your dreams. Guys from Fujifilm as well.Yes, they are still not perfect and pricey, but they are not cheap to make. And at this price point, you can't expect it to be best-seller.Look at Canon and Nikon, still playing market leaders and trying to convince you with crap cameras. Actually, they are doing nothing now.Big up for Sony.
@ GaryJP: Different needs to different people! Many enjoy GREAT (not perfect) quality from a small camera they can discretely keep on them in contrast to their large bulky DSLR system. For many, sheer critical IQ isn't the do-all-end-all. It's the usability and experience you captured with it as well.
Sometimes with my large DSLR, I feel like I'm more documenting an event for others rather than experiencing it for myself. A small camera like the RX100 allows you to have fun yourself, but still capture what you're doing as well. This is why GoPro's are so popular, and people look like their having so much fun while using them.
MarcLee: I'll trust DPReview on this one over Time Magazine.
It is a good camera, probably the best WITHIN ITS SIZE RANGE, but if it had had a better lens it would have been a great one.
Anyone saying that it outclasses either the G1 X or APS C or full frame sensors really does not have a clue. But then it shouldn't really be expected to, and without these silly comparisons the whole thread would be much more informative.
I am constantly surprised when the fanboy behaviour for compacts like this outstrips the fanboy behaviour for DSLR systems, but it always seems to work on a more immature level. After all, people who haver bought into a system have a lot to lose, changing brands in compacts is as simple as buying one camera. Maybe the difference is the relative professionalism of the two groups.
As an RX-100 owner I will admit what it does, it does well. I own a mid-sized DSLR, and it's satisfying to use the RX-100 just in the discreet difference in size. I can't have my DSLR with me all the time. But I can seriously have my RX-100 with me all the time wherever I go, moreso than a G1X for cheaper.
Gives me more time to just enjoy myself and take memorable photos and video. Can't agonize over much more than that!
Kinematic Digit: wow, the OM-D cannot be called ugly with this competing against it now.
This almost make the Hasselblad Lunar look good.
However liking the specs, and the mode dials. This is what the Nikon 1 system should have been (with exception to the industrial design).
o-O people have called the OM-D ugly? I think it's one of the best looking digital cameras ever released aside from the M series.
Jeff Seltzer: Looks like a bunch of uninstresting snapshots in bright sunshine. Seems like almost any camera could make these images.
Not sure what you were expecting, here..? I'm sure you know that it's not the camera that makes the shot interesting, so I won't jam that down your throat. But really, the DPR guys are probably busy people. They can't spend a week with the RX1 trying to get super artistic and high concept shots just to curate a small online gallery. All they need are basic shots for demonstration's sake. These foot the bill just fine.
(That said, just because the RX1 is capable of capturing reality just are finely as other cameras, doesn't mean a person interested in the RX1 should just go out and buy the standard-issue Canon or Nikon, anyway. It's all up to individual preference of the little things that matter to them.)